Uncovering the causes of an employee?s poor performance and/or absenteeism
(they usually go together) is the key to addressing unacceptable behaviour.
Unfortunately, much of the time, it is the visible behaviours that are targeted. This is
likely to not only exacerbate management frustrations but it is unlikely to succeed.
Dismissal should be the last resort
A prime example of this was a recent disciplinary enquiry that resulted in the
dismissal of an employee. The disappointing aspect of the enquiry was that, had the
underlying issues behind the employee?s behaviour been identified sooner and
addressed, things could have turned out differently. Unfortunately, management?s
initial response to his absenteeism, though done with the best of intentions, had
actually encouraged the employee?s dysfunctional behaviour.
Case study
The employee, a receiver at a local company, was charged with intermittent
absenteeism. The evidence was overwhelming, as his absenteeism patterns had been
tracked via a simple calendar mapping technique. He had been spoken to on
numerous occasions about his behaviour.
Though workplace counselling had been done with him, he had refused
professional help. Shortly after that, he had repeated the unwanted behaviour -
absenting himself for three days after he had been paid.
Eventually, he had been issued him with a final warning, as well as a final
counselling letter. Both were still valid. After becoming suspicious about his and
irregularities in the sick notes he presented HR made contact with his doctor.
When the employee was confronted, he became very emotional and stated that
his life was being threatened. He had borrowed money from a loan shark and was
unable to pay it back. The loan shark had threatened him that he would come looking
for payback at the end of every month, after payday. This was when he stayed
away from work. He admitted that he had resorted to lying to the doctor, as well as
his employer, and feigning illnesses so that he could stay at home.
The employer had assisted him in the past to get an administration order and by
consolidating his debt. However, despite being blacklisted, he had repeated the
behaviour again. Now all he wanted was money to pay the loan shark so that he
could come back to work without fear.
A little probing revealed however that the issues ran deeper than that. The
employee also had an alcohol dependency problem, which, was at the root of his
debt problem.
He admitted in the enquiry that he had been abusing alcohol for a number of years
but he had never spoken to the employer about it. The employer had focused on the
debt problem, but unwittingly ignored the real problem - alcohol abuse.
The employee was seemingly under the impression that the employer would assist
him again by loaning him money. However, the employer was at a point where they
had lost patience with the employee. They deemed the employment relationship to
be irreparably damaged due to a breakdown in trust. As far as they were concerned,
he could do whatever he liked - they wanted him out!
Taking responsibility
Many employees, when counseled and offered professional help will turn it down.
This is not uncommon because either they are in denial that there is a problem or too
proud to reveal the problem. The biggest mistake an employer can make however is
focus on the visible behaviours - there is usually more to it "than meets the eye?.
Another mistake is to become an enabler - a term originating from the relationship
between a drug addict and another, who thinks that by protecting the drug addict
they are helping him or her.
In these cases, the intention to help actually makes the problem worse. It
happens when someone takes responsibility or blame, or makes accommodations for
another person's unacceptable conduct. Though this is usually done with the best of
intentions, it actually disempowers the person by protecting them from the
consequences of their choices and actions. Ultimately the person does not have to
take responsibility for their choices. They are protected from the consequences of
their choices so there is no need or pressure to change.
Corrective Discipline
The Courts have endorsed the concept of corrective discipline; putting
responsibility in the hands of employers to assist employees through issues of poor
performance and minor misconduct. The aim should be to get to the root cause of
employee problems, which could even save the employee?s life. This however,
requires effort on the part of the employer to take the time to delve below the
presenting symptoms to root out the real problem and its causes. It is only by
addressing these that the employee can be rehabilitated.
We are all responsible for our choices
Ultimately, each person must take responsibility for their choices. If an employee is
not prepared to acknowledge a problem (e.g. gambling, drug or alcohol abuse) then
dismissal is appropriate, as the employee will have brought it upon himself through
the choices he has made. He has only himself to blame and arbitrators will not
overturn such dismissals.
What do you think?
